Same here

Yes and Yes.

How do nfts and ****coins on Bitcoin sustain themselves... if they have to pay high fees?

I think the definition (of Bitcoin 'the money') comes from common sense, no? No I don't. Why do you ask?

So you think that if the spammers showed up... and the monetary users showed up... Bitcoin's network would be more valuable to spammers than actual users?

The mempool isn't empty because of the spam attack. The mempool is empty because of the CGTaxes required by the state. And because "bitcoiners" somehow have gotten soft and lazy. And because people want change to happen without making any effort themselves.

If the blockchain was completely full... for months or years that data of financial transactions would be stored too, no? So blocks would be full anyway. In fact if it became the 'world reserve currency' of sorts blocks would be completely full and transactions expensive. Would you be happy then?

I always wanted to ask: which part specifically is the money? Is it the UTXO? The blocks? The various scripts? The private keys? The public keys? Relay policy? Which part is the Money? Maybe it's the ASICs that run all night and day?

If you 'filter' the spam from your own mempool, and therefore don't see it when it's time to estimate your fees and outbid...

How do you know how much to bid? How do you 'outbid the spam' if you can't see it in your own mempool?

Thank you for your post. Several wallets available for 'sending' the silent payment... not much in the way of receiving however.

Is this AI?

Fighting spam isn't passive, it's active. Paying fees and outbidding spammers is the best way to keep Bitcoin monetary.

Users like me want to fight spam every chance we get... but we do that by paying fees and outbidding the spam.

We have a big problem. And IMO the 'social media' environment is making this worse because people argue with each instead of looking for solutions.

At least you have some character

If they pay fees let them in. The 'monetary' use case will by definition outpace and outspend the non-monetary use case by definition...

If it doesn't or can't then Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed somehow and we need to start over.

Not good. Non-custodial isn't that hard to use. Hell I figured it out both on a phone and a node-in-a-box. That's imo what 'we' should focus on. Not this fake L2 stuff...

We are going backwards. Huge fan of Lightning. But how does this 'help' us?

What could go wrong?

Bitcoin is decided by those who pay fees

If you mean Knots by 'they'... Then you're right, they will. Isn't is obvious?

Question - how did the fix in Knots come about? Was it through limiting the size of Witness scripts? or simply targeting the op_if op_endif combination for [non]relay?

My research on this at the time... was that most Core developers thought the arbitrary data combination could easily be replicated with other opcodes, slightly changed, and repeated or reproduced ever so slightly different.

So it would be like 'whack a mole' because the exact scripts could be changed slightly again and again and filtering each time would do more harm than good.

Today, the reason for not 'filtering' is that the 90% threshold would never be met... and filtering inscriptions today would harm the mempool, fee estimation, and be ineffective regardless a net negative.

So it has not been changed.

The other explanations I've read is that larger witness 'blobs' aren't economic... the NFTs or jpegs are DoS attacks noone is really buying them. Attackers will change or alter their attack ever so slightly... because they don't care about the arbitrary data ITSELF, just attacking Bitcoin noone is buying monkey jpegs.

Which I also think is true.

I have tried for hours and hours.